Who needs dead people, nursing homes or fraudulent absentee voting when you have a Federal Judge?
PORT CHESTER, N.Y. – Arthur Furano voted early — five days before Election Day. And he voted often, flipping the lever six times for his favorite candidate. Furano cast multiple votes on the instructions of a federal judge and the U.S. Department of Justice as part of a new election system crafted to help boost Hispanic representation.
Voters in Port Chester, 25 miles northeast of New York City, are electing village trustees for the first time since the federal government alleged in 2006 that the existing election system was unfair. The election ends Tuesday and results are expected late Tuesday.
Although the village of about 30,000 residents is nearly half Hispanic, no Latino had ever been elected to any of the six trustee seats, which until now were chosen in a conventional at-large election. Most voters were white, and white candidates always won.
Federal Judge Stephen Robinson said that violated the Voting Rights Act, and he approved a remedy suggested by village officials: a system called cumulative voting, in which residents get six votes each to apportion as they wish among the candidates. He rejected a government proposal to break the village into six districts, including one that took in heavily Hispanic areas. (Source)
Obviously the problem couldn't be:
1. Low Hispanic Voter Turnout
2. High Percentage of Ineligible Voters in the Hispanic Community
3. Hispanics voting for white guys.
4. Illegal Immigrants steering clear of any location that requires
proof of identity.
No, the problem has something to do with white people. Of course! So a racist judge unlawfully gives 6 votes to every Hispanic voter and white people get to cast their customary 1 vote. Besides the obvious, this illegal judicial action gives rise to other illegalities. Who, for instance will decide who is Hispanic and who is not? For example, I am a white guy that speaks fluent Spanish from my experience as a missionary in South America. Do I get 6 votes? Do we base Hispanicism on:
1. Skin color?
2. Last Names?
3. Number of Visits to Taco Bell?
4. Relationship to the "Red Hot Chili Peppers"?
5. Low Rider ownership?
Who sets the criteria? Are there actually Hispanic Leadership that will decide who is and is not Hispanic? I can see how that would go:
Hispanic Leader: "Mr. Gonzalez, you say your mother was born in Switzerland and then raised in Spain?"
Mr. G: "That is correct. But I did grow up eating frijoles and churros."
HL: "Were those frijoles grown in a Spanish speaking Country?"
Mr. G: "Oh, and I love Carlos Santana!"
HL: "Hmmm. I don't know. Would you mind stepping next to this paint color chart."
Mr. G: "Oh and Margaritas, I love Margaritas!"
HL: "A little too close to the "Ivory White" I'm afraid.
Mr. G: "and Tanning Booths! I love Tanning Booths!"
HL: "I'll tell you what, my shift ends in an hour. Here's a can of "insta-tan". Come back at 2:30."
Of course the Federal Judge is failing to address other inequities in the failed system of "1 person: 1 vote". I propose that the following individuals should also qualify for 6 votes in the coming election:
1. Poodle Owners that call their dogs "shnookie-umkins"
2. "Meatloaf" Concert Ticket Holders
3. People that drive the speed limit
4. Old people that don't do crossword puzzles
5. Hair stylists that don't use the word "gorgeous"
And of course, Federal Judges with a basic understanding of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Legal Precedent. Find me one of those and he or she can have all of the votes they want.